Appeals court ponders nature of the Whizzinator

A Missouri appeals court recently took up an interesting question: Does the use of a Whizzinator constitute forgery?

Robert Smothers of Moberly, Missouri, was subject to drug testing as a condition of his bond. Smothers was submitting a sample when a police officer administering the test heard a snapping noise. Asked about the suspicious ruckus, Smith allegedly admitted to using a Whizzinator device.

Randolph County charged Smothers with forgery and possession of forging instrumentality. Bogus, said Smith’s lawyer, who argued that the state’s forgery laws did not apply to urine samples. A circuit court agreed, and the charges were dismissed in 2008.

The prosecutor appealed, asserting that Smothers acted with a purpose to defraud.